Child Porn Laws Aren't As Bad As You Think. They're Much, Much Worse.

My last article about the counterproductive laws on the topic of child abuse imagery has drawn quite a bit of attention, and I’m very happy about that. Its worst conceivable fate would have been to lay silenced in stigma, but people seem to have shared it far and wide.

I take one bit of criticism to heart immediately, though, and that is the counterproductivity of talking about “child pornography”. We should be talking about “child abuse imagery” or “documentation of child abuse”. As the latter term implies an inclusion of text-only material, I will use the Child Abuse Imagery (CAI) henceforth.

A common protest to my article was that prosecution of people who record evidence of child abuse, or of teenagers doing things voluntarily, “would absolutely never happen”. The arguments went along these lines:

It would be absolutely insane for the law to say this, and since the law can’t possibly be that insane, you must be wrong. Therefore, you’re an evil person for writing this opinion.

The problem is that I agree with these people: it would be absolutely insane for the law to say the examples I gave, and that the law says exactly that, so the law is indeed that insane. I understand the disbelief, so I’ll be returning to that shortly and list how it has already happened. But first, let’s take a look at what happens when you document evidence of a couple of types of very serious crimes:

If you film a police abuse situation to get evidence and show it to the world so the power abusers can get caught, you’re a hero to the level that your film can cause riots.

If you document a genocide in enough detail that your evidence can bring perpetrators to justice, you’re a worldwide hero.

If you film wartime killings, people will risk their lives – and sometimes die – to bring your evidence and documentation to news studios.

If you risk being beaten up by covertly filming a street battery and assault, you’re welcomed with open arms by the police when you hand over the evidence you produced. (I personally did this, for the record.)

If you film something as serious as a presidential assassination, people will watch the film over and over and over again and your name will go down in history for centuries.

If you film a rapist of a minor to get evidence in order to bring the sick, twisted bastard to justice, you’re the bad guy and will get a worse sentence than the rapist you attempt to bring to justice and jail.

Where is the logic here? Where is the justice? Lionel Dricot elaborates well on this.

I’d like to see people who focus on the feelings of the victims to justify jail terms for CAI possession to justify why you can possess genocide documentation, and you’re even encouraged to have it and distribute it, but that people should go to jail for CAI. Another counter-argument to the above has been that there would somehow be money in the rape evidence case, but not in the others. I can’t quite understand where this argument comes from and I’m sure Fox News, CNN, al-Jazeera, etc, would be very surprised to learn there’s no market at all for filmed evidence of violent crime and other forms of violence/killings.

These laws weren’t primarily written to help children at all, I’m afraid. That’s not their effect, either.

As I described in my last post, these laws were constructed by Christian-fundamentalist pressure groups with the intent of shaming and criminalizing normal teenage behavior, and the side effect of protecting child molesters from prosecution, under the pretext of protecting children. I find that completely unacceptable. Outrageous, actually.

Other politicians are not late in exploiting the situation. I learned from Arjen Kamphuis that the economics minister in the Netherlands tried to railroad ACTA through with the argument that it “would only be used against child abuse imagery sites”. (So, ironically, he was arguing for stronger copyright monopoly laws to combat child abuse imagery – not sure how the logic holds together, there.)

Many, when they hear of “child abuse imagery”, imagine horrible images of crying toddlers getting unspeakably abused. But that’s not what the prosecutions are about. That’s why a lot of people who are indicted of possession of CAI get dumbstruck in complete disbelief, and even more so when convicted. But since the convictions are secret, we can’t see what people are actually convicted of, but just assume they are monsters.

So I’m going to take the opportunity to present a rare exception to the secrecy.

A man working with manga comics lost his career over possession of this image: he was found guilty of possessing “child pornography”. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and only on appeal was this image found to not be Child Abuse Imagery.

If you’re a somewhat typical person, you’re now reacting with a OMG I’ve looked at child porn, omg omg I’m a horrible horrible person! That’s normal. We’ve been trained to think and feel that way.

Then, second thoughts set in, as you realize that there’s not even a naked and much less abused child in this… cartoon, and assuming you’re still a typical person, your thoughts and feelings probably race in this direction:

Wait a minute. This is a cartoon of a clothed child playing in the water. This is not a real child, and there is definitely no abuse going on. This is not even remotely pornographic. What sick, twisted, perverted fuck of a judge ruins a man’s life over this picture?

Unfortunately, it was not one judge, but five in a panel, and their hands were tied by the law: there was a lot of public discussion on the subject, and everybody agreed that the judges had applied the law correctly with no option to acquit. As a result, the man’s career was instantly destroyed, and his computer – complete with family photos, work, and other things you typically have on a computer – was destroyed too. This is where a normal adult’s thoughts go toward something like this:

What evil monsters write a law so twisted, perverse, and plain wrong that it forces academically schooled, decent, and respectable judges to make so obviously perverse a verdict?

…and, well, yeah, that’s pretty much the point I wanted to come to.

The evil monsters are ECPAT, by the way, which I described in my last article, the fundamentalist Christian organization that claims they care about children. Oh, and they vigorously defended the man’s conviction over this image, too, arguing about “violations of children on a conceptual level”. Even the police argued publicly against the law banning possession of child abuse imagery here, arguing – from their viewpoint – that it protects child molesters, as they are forced to hunt comics fans instead of real crime. This is similar to my argumentation in this and the previous article.

Yes, this is the same ECPAT that made it illegal for you to possess naked or sexual images of yourself from before your 18th birthday, arguing that it violates “children in general on a conceptual level”.

The man was eventually acquitted because manga images weren’t realistic enough – the eyes were too big – and not because the imagery as such wasn’t criminally culpable child pornography. The Supreme Court basically bent over backwards to acquit in a highly political verdict, seeing the nationwide attention of the case.

Oh, and I should add: before this verdict was reversed, and the image above declared explicitly legal in Sweden (and therefore the EU), you would also have been sentenced as a sex offender in Sweden for looking at the cartoon image like you just did.

When this court case was going on in Sweden, and particularly after the first verdict, several comics artists in Sweden started drawing 17-year-olds having sex, as realistically as possible but still in a comic fashion, and publishing them, intentionally breaking the law in sympathy with this manga translator and comics fan who had been convicted. Unfortunately, I can’t link to them, as they have not been explicitly cleared in a court of law, as that could put me on the censorship list, and I want this article to stay visible.

Yes, you read that right. In the Nordic countries, there is a secret censorship list maintained by the police that most ISPs follow about which domains you’re not allowed to visit. It’s supposed to be strictly CAI only, but has been found to be less than 1% such material, 9 out of 1047 censored domains: in reality, once leaked, it was discovered to be mostly ordinary porn with age certs and all, but also completely unrelated sites like Bonsai gardening that’s on the list of censored sites (koreabonsai.com). For more on this, see this blog post by Oscar Swartz from 2007.

When a Finnish activist published the secret censorship list to criticize this wrongdoing and abuse of power, their site was itself immediately added to the censorship list. This is consistent not with democracies, but with a completely different set of regime, that reporters who expose abuse of power are immediately silenced.

In any case, learning from that event, I choose not to link and display anything but what I know to have been cleared and I hope you understand my priorities (as well as see the meta-point I’m making).

Joe McNamee of EDRi, European Digital Rights Initiative, called the censorship list “Ineffective, counterproductive, and absurd” in a hearing in the European Parliament recently.

Ah yes, journalism. Why don’t we look a bit more at how that profession and activity is affected?

Images and videos of children getting their arms chopped off and/or with their bodies burning are ok, but not naked children. So how about a burning and naked child? Let’s see what happened last time that was published. (If you’re young, you may not remember this image, but it was deeply imprinted in the world’s psyche at the time.)

Children running down a road after having had their village bombed with napalm in the Vietnam War. The naked 9-year-old girl near center-middle had her back burned badly, after shedding her napalmed and burning clothes. This image won a Pulitzer and ended the Vietnam War. Today, it would never have been published, and the war would likely have continued for far longer. (Photo by Nick Ut; published under fair use for nonprofit commentary.) More info on Wikipedia.

This image ended a war. Today, it would never have been published. Are the laws that prevent that really okay in any way, shape, or form – laws that prevent stories like the napalming of children from being told?

This image is quite likely child pornography in Sweden today (just compare with the cartoon above…) so I need to invoke a journalistic defense in the law and state it’s being used for current-events commentary, and point at the fact that I have a journalistic license for this blog (utgivningsbevis). Don’t be too sure you can republish it if you don’t.

Moving to things that “could absolutely never happen”, according to reactions, I’d like to highlight how they have already happened in some cases. The most obvious retort has been that “Nobody would accidentally record a rape using Google Glass – they don’t even exist!”. Well, no, they don’t. That’s why I am clear that I think the re-legalization of every kind of observation and re-broadcast will need to be made in a decade, which is even in the headline. However, I still argue that the laws as they stand today are already protecting child molesters.

As for other things that “could absolutely never happen”, that’s a very strong statement. It is enough for me to present one single case where it did happen to prove that it can happen. And even if it’s rare that something happens, that doesn’t matter – even a minuscule possibility of something very bad or very good happening can change people’s behavior fundamentally. To illustrate, Europeans spend millions of euros every week on the lottery, despite the chance of winning the jackpot being something like one in ten billion.

“Nobody would get prosecuted for handing in evidence”: There was a famous case in Sweden where a mother recorded evidence of her children having been abused, by filming them playing, documenting what would have been much too advanced sexual play for that age, handed it to the police, and promptly was arrested for possession of CAI. In the meantime, Social Services gave the father single custody of their children, and banned her from seeing them. She was ultimately acquitted from the criminal charges, but Social Services didn’t change their verdict; she’s still banned from seeing her children ever again. I think that only the most heartless of bureaucrats would call such a fate an “acquittal”.

“Nobody would get prosecuted for handing in evidence”, again: In Spain, prosecution of child molesters grinded to a halt as the local police said outright that people couldn’t legally submit evidence of the crime.

Seeing these cases, would you dare interfere? Would you really risk that your children were separated from their parent over your trying to good? I’d argue that most people wouldn’t, and that the current laws therefore protect child molesters.

“Nobody would ever get prosecuted for having comics”: Well, see above.

“No teenager would ever get prosecuted for having photos of themselves”: This has happened many, many times.

Christian von der Weth has an additional writeup about the toxicity of “possession” as such, when applied to computers – most users have no idea about what files they have on their computer, and it is trivially easy for a webpage to plant images on a computer. (He demonstrates this by planting an image of a cute dog.) Jake Appelbaum makes the same observation.

Reactions to the article

Normally, I have a rather strict comment policy here, about “no rude comments“. This time, I chose to keep the “I’m going to kill you for having that opinion” comments, to highlight the contrast (not to mention the fact that the hate comments are drowned out by constructive discussion, for the first time ever on this subject).

To be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever read such a nuanced, thoughtful discussion on this subject as in the threads that the article started. I’m very happy to see that people are daring to start clean up this toxic sludge and attempt to make sense of our laws. For examples, look at the Slashdot thread as well as the thread on Hacker News. It’s not just the traditional geek forums, either: Mainstream press such as Business Insider also holds a generally supportive comment field.

The one exception came from the German Piratenpartei, whose leadership quickly sent out a press release distancing themselves from me as a person. That (the distancing) predictably became a story in itself in German press, the exact content of the PPDE press release, rather than the contents and argumentation of my article.

Ironically enough, this attempt from the PPDE leadership to prevent a controversy by strongly distancing from me as a person seems to have overshot its target and instead created a controversy within the German PP – one example in this blog post, several more on Twitter. It is not possible for me abroad to determine the scale and scope of this, but I wanted to highlight the full picture. In any case, I’m sad to see the conflict but happy to see the subject being discussed: this is a subject that all PPs must be able to talk about.

(Other PPs have been calmer and just stated the plain truth, that I posted my article as an attempt to spark a debate, and that it is no policy of any party. Easy enough. Those who wanted to could also have added that it is official policy of at least one journalist’s union, which is a good response to any reporter.)

The Piratenpartei aside, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that kind of massive positive feedback for that kind of neckrisking statement, and I want to thank everybody for that. We all risk our necks every day in fighting for what we believe is right, and I respect each and every one who does.

There’s also all of the silent support, of course. I’ve gotten a lot of support under the table – including from members of the Piratenpartei who want to take the edge off the reaction of their leadership (thanks!), and quite visibly in the numbers of followers/fans on Twitter/Facebook that spiked above the ordinary.

In the meantime, I want my children to grow up in a world where nobody thinks you’re brave for stating a political opinion, but perhaps that’s just a feature of Homo Sapiens, seeing that people have been punished for unpopular ideas, thoughts, and opinions for the past 2,000 years or so.

In these credits, I’ve left out the many (hundreds) of mildly positive comments that forwarded the article to their friends (which is fantastic in itself), and wanted to highlight a sample that made me particularly happy about other people daring to break the stigma and discuss this as adult people:

Rick Falkvinge

Rick is the founder of the first Pirate Party and a low-altitude motorcycle pilot. He works as Head of Privacy at the no-log VPN provider Private Internet Access; with his other 40 hours, he's developing an enterprise grade bitcoin wallet and HR system for activism.

Discussion

Thanks for this article. Being a member of PPDE, I was severely shocked by the Press release made by Bernd. I consider this an important topic to discuss about, especially with the current laws in Sweden and the US. From what I have been reading, in German law there are exceptions in child porn laws, if they are made by minors (the case where minors send each other pictures is covered by this). Again, thanks for this and your other article. We need this discussion, even if some people are too close-minded to discuss about it.

I think in all likelihood, Bernd may’ve been worried about long-term repercussions for the party. There’s the positive comments now, the somewhat neutral coverage in other media, but such things could be quick to blow over. In many cases, people don’t stay dedicated to causes. They’re given lip service and we ultimately lose interest, lose unity of opinion, and cower under the cemented hatred of those who hang on to ignorance.

Vilinthril

September 11, 2012

FYI, our reaction (Pirate Party of Austria) was definitely not like the German one, despite the fact that we are actually in election campaigns with chances of winning seats (like they are).

This strikes me as an unusually balanced reaction, with a good position-taking at the end. Thank you for taking the time to let me know.

Cheers,
Rick

Vilinthril

September 11, 2012

Gladly. You did put us in a bit of a bind there at first, but I’m really proud of our reaction, especally when compared to the German Pirate Party. 😉

Caleb

September 11, 2012

Rick, I want to thank you for writing this. I appreciated both the sentiment and points made in your previous article, but find this follow up to be more persuasive and better written. You took a huge risk in even raising the subject, and I’m grateful that you chose to do what you thought moral rather than what was expedient.

While I appreciate you taking on the matter, I must critizize your choice of words. You write a Blog Post with the words “child pornography” and “legalize” in the headline. I do not think that anyone except scholars and specialized politicans will actually understand the difference. And therefore they will repeat it as “Falkvinge wants to legalize child porn” and as a you are a very well known person in the pirate movement, that means that Piratenpartei has to deal with what the press will write, not what you wrote.

The second thing is, that you mix up different problems, that can all be handled by different solutions. I.e. the fact that even pictureless texts fall under “child porn” law, means that we have to change the definition of “child porn” and does not necessarily mean that we have to legalize possesion of real CAI. (The fact that we criminalize witnesses and not culprits might tough).

Long story short, you could have written your arguments in a much better way. So as much as I understand the criticism on the very panicked press release of the party leadership of Piratenpartei, I must say your in my opponion very unthoughtful choice of words, played a very important role in the whole problem.

Best regards
Andi Popp

Mårten

September 11, 2012

I am a bit surprised by PPDEs reaction, surely no topic is so toxic that it should be banned from discussion, is not that a core pirate value in itself? How is anyone ever going to be able to point out that the emperor is naked in a discussion climate like that.

@Rick: Good follow up. When I first read cartoon images was outlawed in Sweden I didn’t believe it either, not until I read a statement on the police’s own website about it.

Well, no topic is so toxic that it should be banned from discussion, but there are topics that are so toxic that they are distinctly unhealthy to handle.

This is a topic that is a tactical suicide. That’s why it should be avoided. This battle can’t be won, there are other battles just as important that can be won. Win them instead of losing this, and losing the credibility needed to win the other battles in the progress.

harveyed

September 11, 2012

Well… Our opponents, the censors, are also in this battle. What makes us any worse off than them? Looking at this historically, we really have an obligation to fight this battle.

Our forefathers fought against repressive witch-hunts and for democratic rights. We can’t pussy out now just because the people who are in charge right now keep using the same scare tactics as always!

harveyed

September 11, 2012

If you think about it for a second I bet you can realize that the fear mongering and hysteria about child porn today is just a badly disguised form of modern day witch-hunting which once stuck western societies in a repressive dictatorships for many centuries.

One thing to note about this topic and Germany is that we already had a very similar public debate. In 2009 (iirc) Ursula “Zensursula” von der Leyen pushed that “Zugangserschwerungsgesetz” through parliament on the backs of abused children, and it took weeks for people like netzpolitik.org to find a footing to argue a counter-position that was not instantly destroyed by someone screeching “you rape toddlers, you sick fucks!”. In what i still consider to be a very smart move, a guy named Christian Bahls founded Mogis (see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/MissbrauchsOpfer_Gegen_InternetSperren ), a lobbying non-profit. The name roughly translates to “abuse victims against internet censorship”, and what he did under that name was to go on television and say “this law makes things worse for people that were abused in their childhood, people like me”. This won the moral high ground, and at least from my perspective it emancipated the discussion from “save the children” to something a bit more factual.

Given this background, i thought that Germany was one of the places in the EU where you could have a less agitated discussion about this topic. The rather non-relaxed reactions by PPDE and lawblog.de took me by surprise and i consider them to be missed opportunities to further discussion culture.
We currently have a pretty tense discussion here about (religious, child-age) circumcision that i did not quite follow, my guess would be that this was just one “abused children” topic too much for some people?

Aside: blog.fefe.de is not written by a PPDE member, however i’m pretty sure a lot of German pirates read it regularily (theres a bit of a love/hate relationship going on between Fefe and PPDE).

I actually disagree with that. You can discuss this issue, it’s not even “toxic”, it’s just like a sharp blade. Handle it carefully and everything goes well. Handle it like a toy, and you will cut yourself. There is enough reason for a change in “child porn” law, but you have to explain that carefully.

Density

September 11, 2012

I you do not fight this battle now, your cause will be sooner or later undermined by people who support censorship.
On the contrary, by NOT fighting such a battle, the Pirateparty would lose credibility. Look at the PP in Germany. Their rise began *after* they fought against censorship involving child pornography. Even letting Jörg Tauss into the party was not political suicide. Again, it was the opposite, by doing so the German Pirateparty showed the public that they had the guts to treat a person as innocent until he’s actually sentenced.

The world is not full of brainless idiots. Those are a minority that gets far too much credit. Most people do listen to reason and many people know what justice really means.

Sven Slootweg

September 11, 2012

If you believe that a crucial topic like this is a battle that cannot be won, and think it’s acceptable to let those that are unfairly criminalized suffer… then what are you doing in politics, specifically in a party whose main objectives are in line with the points outlined by Falkvinge?

We have enough politicians claiming all kinds of things and pussying out when things get tough. If you want to make a real change, then man up and face the real problems. The problems that others conveniently ignore.

On this note, I applaud Falkvinge for taking the step and speaking out about this where everyone else sweeps the topic under the carpet, and I cannot see how any self-respecting Pirate could disagree with that.

I’m a tactician. I know that you need to fight the winnable battle first. With your positions moved forward after those wins, more battles will be winnable. If you dive head first into an unwinnable battle, you will lose all.

It’s like a chess game. Capture lesser pieces first, while building up your strength (more pieces than the opponent, better position) before you go in for the king.

Politics is much the same, but instead of power coming from pieces on the board, power comes from the influence you get, which in turn is a result of how the public views you. By choosing such a battle as this, you will alienate lots of people. You will lose power.

How it should be handled is to instead choose battles that can be won, such as, for example, FRA, IPRED, TPB and so on. These are issues where we will gain sympathizers, and thus build up force. These are also battles which can be won. After enough such battles are won, then one might be strong enough to tackle the previously, unwinnable battles.

A heroic but futile charge against the enemy machinegun positions may be heroic, but it will not win the war or even advance our positions. It will just get us mowed down.

harveyed

September 12, 2012

Anders:

I absolutely don’t think you are right in believing this battle is unwinnable. We have our democratic rights and pussying out of protecting them just because you are afraid to get some other manipulative bastards’ shit on your hands is just not acceptable.

You have the CensUrsula in Germany 2009 where victims of child abuse organized and spoke out against the repressive censorship legislation and were actually accepted by very many mass media as the moral high ground and that the manipulated people screaming “you damn pedophile!” were proven wrong.

The enemies tactics really has no substance – it is lie through and through. The only thing that is needed to win this is the courage to disprove your opponents. If someone dares to oppose them head on – that would be their greatest fear.

Winnable or not, there are many battles of equal or higher importance that is much easier to win, and will not attract as much badwill.

It’s a bad tactical decision to choose this fight over those battles.

One must also consider the very real problem that we do not have the strength to fight on all fronts. We need to adopt the traditional guerilla (“We only need to be stronger in one location, our opponent needs to be stronger everywhere”) focused hit and run tactic.

Mårten

September 12, 2012

@Anders, I think it is winnable even if it is a very though fight. But more importantly it is a necessary fight or else we are going to keep loosing ground to the pro-censorship camp. They have already managed to outlaw comics and video games (!) it won’t stop there unless someone draws a line and takes a stand. This may not be the right time to “invade Normandy”, but if we can’t even discuss the issue it is just going to get worse, and Rick is braver than most for doing so. So thumbs up from me.

Littlegreenleaf

September 13, 2012

@Anders Troberg,

“I’m a tactician. I know that you need to fight … If you dive head first into an unwinnable battle, you will lose all.”

If you ideed are, I would dare say, in all humlity, that you are spectacularly wrong in this.

If our history shows us anything, from Alexander the Great and onwards, both in the political arena as in the field of human conflict, it is that it has very often been precisly the other way around.

Many of the most pervasive cultural, physical and political changes our societies have experianced has to I profound degree been events that easily, both in retrospect, as in a contemporary perspective can be classified as “stupid”, “unwinnable”, “absurd” and “unrealistic”.

I think this specific opinion you expresses is very much a modern idelogical child of our very cosy comfortable lives. We are such intellectual and physical cowards today that we do not dare risk even a slight chance of discomfort, in relation to grave future risks and dangers to us all.

Sometimes you have to dare take a chance and step into the unknown consciously, even if you can not envision the endgame. Sometimes you have to knowingly loose a battle to win the war, and somtimes you have to gamble all to win all.

But you always have to have courage enough to do what needs to be done, and if need be, face up to the consequences. If you do not, the battle may already be lost before it is even fought.

True, many important events have been the result of choosing “stupid” battles.

On the other hand, that it occasionally turns out successful, usually due to incompetent opponents, does not change the fact that, in the vast majority of cases, it ends in a miserable failure. There’s a reason they are stupid battles to fight, even if the dice occasionally roll to the far end of the bell curve.

Mr. Slowpoke

September 21, 2012

On this ground your politics of fighting only battles that can be won (easy battles, so to speak) will never succeed in something that matters. For simple reason that lifetime is finite and that kind of laws can easily snowball straight into hell with time. You will spend a large amount of time doing tiny bits and achieve nothing. And when you’ll think “now’s the time” it will be too late.

Nathanael

September 21, 2012

This is a critically easy to win battle. Why? Because the current censorship laws *protect child abusers*.

The censors are on the side of child abusers, by making it illegal for anyone to collect evidence of their abuse. The abusers laugh and smile as they know that the so-called “child pornography ban” protects them.

It is really easy to win this battle, given that you’re *protecting children*.

Andi, this fear doesn’t explain that the PPDE responded with a statement that could have been written by the SPD. They could have simply stayed calm and silent.

Oliver

September 12, 2012

The pirate party in germany is a shame in my opinion. Not enough to stick the knife in Ricks back, they didn’t even try to understand or explain the context of your text. The german chairman also send out a press release, that most pirates critized immidiately. With this hysterical and non productive behaviour, I would not be surprised, if they want internet censorship next time, just to satisfy the german press.

I already sent my resignation yesterday.

Dennis_the_Pirate

September 11, 2012

Excellent articles that really challenges ones current view. At first I was skeptical (of course) but now I’m completely convinced. The current legislation on CAI is seriously flawed. I’m going to leave the discussion about what to do, to people who know more about law (assuming legislator dare picking this up). But I will definitely keep an eye on the issue.

On another note, it would be interesting to see what you have to say regarding our fellow swede Gottfrid Svartholm and his deportation/extradition/kidnapping from Cambodia. From reading a guest post by Niklas Femerstrand on TorrentFreak (sep 10) it seems like some real shady business is going down (and no, I’m not (entirely) referring to the transfer of 59.4 million dollars of bri… I mean financial aid!).

regardless of all the problems discussed above, i think the two main issues are that porn in general and child porn in particular is used as a reason to get laws enacted that are to do with everything and anything but porn, usually with Hollywood and the entertainment industries in general. the second thing is that because a ‘group’ manages to raise an awful lot of money, it is able to ‘groom’ politicians to do as they are asked and introduce new laws for them. those new laws only reflect what that particular group want to reflect and are actually dictating, through bribery, what the rest of a country, indeed the world, can or cannot do. the problem then is that in the main, those politicians look only as far as they want (end of their nose?), not as far as they should, because of the personal ‘encouragement’ they receive in return for doing as asked. the group itself cannot or will not see anything than having achieved what it wanted and any/all side effects are again ignored. the problem then comes that once the adverse effects of what has been made law are revealed, usually overriding the original intent, it is virtually impossible to get a law repealed

Evpok

September 11, 2012

I am much more convinced by *this* article than by the previous. Thanks a lot, Rick.

In the UK the former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made many speeches about child pornography, even before the Internet. This set the path towards PM Tony Blair hobnobbing with
Rebecca Brooks to discuss the major news items of the age. Sadly, child porn, and child murder by individual molesters lead tabloid headlines for many years. The attitude in the UK has made it pretty much impossible to photograph or video periods in the childhood of the infants unless these same parents decide to go offline. When I was an adolescent my parents would still show old photos of me as an unclothed infant playing in a sandpit.

The UK is a country that has been well and truly blighted by ‘Child Porn Campaigners’. Sometimes it seems they are trying to imitate Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

jimbo

September 12, 2012

once the porn laws are changed to accommodate those that want it, the next thing could easily be religion. once your standing on a slippery slope, getting off is almost impossible. i still say all this crap has come about because there was no resistance to the USA entertainment industries, which basically started the banning, blocking and censoring game and the USA government in general which seems to have become so paranoid since 9/11 (which was a horrendous act and all have my deepest sympathy), that they want people to be under constant surveillance, speech, acts, writing, calls, everything, 24/7. not being content with forcing that sort of society on to Americans, it is forcing it, in one way or another, on to as many other countries as possible. seems to me that democracy is being replaced by a type of democratic fascism and the USA isn’t going to be content until it is running it

Duke

September 13, 2012

I had a look into UK child pornography laws (posted my findings over on the PPUk forum), and they are pretty ridiculous. And it seems to get even worse. Just today a UK MP introduced a Bill that would criminalise *written* stuff (as well as drawings, source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19574487 ). Fortunately this is a Private Member’s Bill, and they rarely get Government support… but then so was the Protection of Children Act 1978, which was the first big anti-child-porn law in the UK (and had to be amended recently to specifically exempt married couples).

harveyed

September 13, 2012

That would effectively revert back much of the hard work of sex education through the 1900s. Ottar (swedish sex education pioneer) would turn in her grave at this fucking idiocy.

Roland

September 11, 2012

As a member in the German Piratenpartei since 2009 I’m deeply in doubt if the party still shares the same principles as it was in 2009 (and as I think it was even before).

The German Piratenpartei is now a collection of different groups of all kinds, battling themselves without having a common broad base consensus anymore. Many veterans left or became inactive, new members join for whatever reasons trying to get their opinion approved (which is easy, as over 50% of the party members are inactive). Lobbyists for their own welfare, mad conspiracy people/”Truthers”, right-wing, left-wing — Pirates? I strongly doubt.

Hell, some people don’t even try to find out what the founding spirit of the Piratenpartei was, they ignore all the transparency in political decision-making. It’s horrible and I feel physical pain each day when read about the latest fuck-up.

I guess 2/3 of my close friends already left the party. Yet, I don’t see another political option that has a liberal, pro-civil-rights position with a positive technology-progressive view.

Sorry for all the whining, maybe it helps to explain the reaction of the German Piratenpartei.

You’re absolutely right about ECPAT being evil. Also, destroying someones computer just because some files on it are illegal is evil in itself! Thats like burning someone’s house down because there is for example a home distilling device in it!

Still, I’d like to see your take on the pros and cons of Google Glass. If you don’t have time or by other reason don’t want to, can’t you just quickly write that as an answer? Thanks.

bernd

September 11, 2012

you should really be specific with your terms. Much “child abuse images” (as defined by the commen interpretation of abuse) should propably be banned, while much child pornography (like its currently used by the media) may be allowed. Saying this, i would not consider as self shot of a 17 year old a child abuse image. not even a photo of a 4 year old, taken by another person, while she is playing with her private parts.
It might not be okay, as some people would say a 4 year old does not do it by herself without anyone giving her this idea. but its definitly not a picture of “child abuse”, as no one is abusing her on the picture. maybe some form of molestation, but not abuse. and even for molestation, i would say its needed to have another person in the image, who at least comes near to her.

so the problem should not be, if “child abuse images” are forbidden, but what qualifies as this.

Jan Andersen

September 11, 2012

@bernd – please give me a reason for even taking a picture of that 4 year old. ThenI will tell you if it is use, abuse or something else.

bernd

September 13, 2012

I think she looks cute doing it. Just as little children look cute, when they are sunken into some activity. And maybe cute how innocent she is, while doing stuff, adults would instantly associate with “dirty” and “not for in the public” and so on.

Thomas

September 18, 2012

@ bernd
Lets forget whether we call the picture of your 4 year old daughter playing with herself child pornography or not.
But would it be ok for you or for your daughter to share that picture with the rest of the world? Or would you consider this special picture to be of a more private nature?

Scary Devil Monastery

September 16, 2012

Assuming you are the parent of a child you will most likely want to document every living second in that child’s life. Most parents do.

Today, in essence, most parents documenting their children at all are in reality guilty of producing child pornography as it is defined by swedish law. This is rather bad.

Rick also gives a specific example where a mother attempted to prove to the police that the child had been abused by filming the child’s behavior. Result was that she was charged with child pornography production and the child went to the father who presumably will continue “teaching” the child “advanced sexual behaviour”

In reality any home with children in it will have a photo-happy parent or two. That is reality.

[…] wow, I didn’t expect this much uptake of one of my last blog posts that was cited here. I, therefore, did not put any efforts in elaborating a bit on how the “injection” of an […]

Justus Ranvier

September 11, 2012

“The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused. It is our task here to see how much of this childhood history can be recaptured from the evidence that remains to us. That this pattern has not previously been noticed by historians is because serious history has long been considered a record of public not private events. Historians have concentrated so much on the noisy sand-box of history, with its fantastic castles and magnificent battles, that they have generally ignored what is going on in the homes around the playground. And where historians usually look to the sandbox battles of yesterday for the causes of those of today, we instead ask how each generation of parents and children creates those issues which are later acted out in the arena of public life.” –Lloyd deMause

The reason you’ve struck a nerve is because the problem is much, much bigger than anyone wants to admit and the existing laws are absolutely designed to hide the evidence rather than stop the rape of children. People don’t want to see the evidence of child abuse because a large number of adults are either complicit in some form of child abuse or have witnessed it and remained silent. They don’t want to feel guilty for their action (or inaction) so they will attack with unhindered vengence anyone who tries to bring awareness of these issues into the public sphere.

Nemo

September 11, 2012

There is no surer protection against the understanding of anything than taking for granted or otherwise despising the obvious and the surface. The problem inherent in the surface of things, and only in the surface of things, is the heart of things.

To be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever read such a nuanced, thoughtful discussion on this subject as in the threads that the article started.

It’s good you didn’t read the comments on spiegel online. I read till the second page (of probably over 20) and after reading something like “To me Rick looks like the child molester prototype. An elderly, pale and chubby momma’s boy unable to get along with grown up woman” I stopped reading further.

The complete forum thread, including all comments, is no longer accessible and has been wiped from the internet. I don’t even want to know what else was written there.

jp

September 11, 2012

It actually seems the comments are still reachable, they just removed all links to the thread, disallowed further comments and removed the one specific example I posted.

Reading the comments again, they don’t seem to bed that bad. But maybe they just removed all extreme comments.

Justus Ranvier

September 11, 2012

(I made this post before but I think it got caught in a spam trap because I was using an email address in the tormail.org domain)

“The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused. It is our task here to see how much of this childhood history can be recaptured from the evidence that remains to us. That this pattern has not previously been noticed by historians is because serious history has long been considered a record of public not private events. Historians have concentrated so much on the noisy sand-box of history, with its fantastic castles and magnificent battles, that they have generally ignored what is going on in the homes around the playground. And where historians usually look to the sandbox battles of yesterday for the causes of those of today, we instead ask how each generation of parents and children creates those issues which are later acted out in the arena of public life.” –Lloyd deMause

The reason you’ve struck a nerve is because the problem is much, much bigger than anyone wants to admit and the existing laws are absolutely designed to hide the evidence rather than stop the rape of children. People don’t want to see the evidence of child abuse because a large number of adults are either complicit in some form of child abuse or have witnessed it and remained silent. They don’t want to feel guilty for their action (or inaction) so they will attack with unhindered vengence anyone who tries to bring awareness of these issues into the public sphere.

Manabu

September 11, 2012

It is surprising to see constructive discussion on this subject.

I don’t see why the law has to have a special case for child pornography/CAI. I may be overlooking something, but the law should be the same for all types of real rape and sexual abuse (including statutory, of course), regardless of age.

This would make for saner laws on the subject, continuing to outlaw what most people think when you say “child pornography”, and at the same time eliminate most “victim less” crimes associated with it. Acts that aren’t illegal to partake shouldn’t be illegal to film/possess, and fiction shouldn’t be touched either.

By the way, statutory rape laws should be modified to be based on age difference between partners. 13 years, as you suggest, is no magical number. Should a 12 year old sexually active couple, or even before that, two children playing “I show mine, and you show me yours” (maybe with help of digital technology), be treated as criminals?

As for recording and possessing evidence for the sole purpose of handing it to the law enforcement, it is easy to add an exception allowing it. If there is the concern that the police might catch you before you had the opportunity to handle it over, some limited time presumption of innocence may help. I don’t see this as a reason for allowing general distribution and possession of CAI, as you tried to put it.

“ […]
I’d like to see people who focus on the feelings of the victims to justify jail terms for CAI possession to justify why you can possess genocide documentation, and you’re even encouraged to have it and distribute it, but that people should go to jail for CAI
[…]”

It is because the effect that it is expected to have on people. Victims of genocide would probably be against distribution of documentation from it if the main reaction to those images would be of delight and desire to partake the genocide themselves.
You can argue if child pornography availability/consumption increases or decreases real abuse to children, except that it is like the violent videogames/movies polemic, but with even less data and study… Regardless, as Thomas commented in the previous article: “In the absolute majority of child porn material, there is a child being abused and humiliated. As long as pictures of this abuse are distributed, the victim will be humiliated, time and time again.” (by child porn he means what should be considered as such for him, and stated that the definition on laws should probably be changed, so PLEASE, don’t pick on it)

js

September 11, 2012

It is one thing to discuss this issue from the outside, it is another entirely to view it from the inside. How destructive it can be to someone’s life, just because of possession.

I am so sick of the laws and the lies, the freedoms we’re all told about. It’s all bullshit. I’m glad there are now dissenting voices, to talk about reason and true justice, not bought law.

However, I personally feel there is too much pedo-panic inertia amongst society right now to consider this argument anything but a losing battle. Many people of voting age have children, or have children in their extended family and are naturally, reflexively, eating the bullshit up that the media are telling them on this subject. Who wouldn’t? We want those closest to us to be safe. But the media doesn’t tell people that a 2009 study showed that 92% of abusers are already inside the home. Mothers, fathers, uncles and aunts, the list goes on. If its’ familial, I wonder how much of that gets reported?

There is also no mention on how far these nefarious people really go. Is every single one of them a rapist? a murderer? a molester? an abuser? Do none of them have any kind of moral system, and therefore do people have a right to feel justified in sweeping every single one of them into prison to “keep the community safer”?

What makes me laugh the most is the idea that interest in children is on the rise. There have always been people with paraphilias, and there always will be. Pretending that the internet has “made” pedos and other such people is preposterous. Exposure to a picture of a woman does not make a gay man straight. I bet they thought it might do in the 1950s though, when being gay was still illegal in many parts of the world.

KR

September 11, 2012

I’m surprised you didn’t touch on the whole hilarity of Age of Consent being a different number as the Age of Depiction. It’s one of the things I never understood about this mess — two youngsters who love each other can legally have sex from around 14-ish in a quite considerable part of the world, but if they take pictures of themselves/each other and share them with each other, they’re criminals. Crazy!

steelneck

September 12, 2012

It would be absolutely insane for the law to say this, and since the law can’t possibly be that insane, you must be wrong. Therefore, you’re an evil person for writing this opinion.

In psycology that is called System justifiacation.

What sick, twisted, perverted fuck of a judge ruins a man’s life over this picture?

I was surprised at the lack of death threats I got from this article. Granted, I stopped short of saying we should legalize child porn, but at least it gave me confidence that the entire world may not have gone mad.

I’m really happy you were able to go further than I did.

Colin Carr

September 12, 2012

Another superb article Rick.
One point the ECPAT crowd overlook is that the vast majority of people are not paedophiles. For instance, you could show me non abusive pictures of naked children all day, and I just wouldn’t be interested. Why not? I suppose you could say my brain/mind is just not programmed that way.
But if you showed me a picture of a child being abused, I’d be revolted, angry, and want the abuser off the streets and well away from children. So if I take this photo to the police, depending on which country I’m in, I get charged with possession of CAI, and the abuser, if pursued, likely gets a lesser punishment than I do.

I’m sure I read somewhere that most child abusers were themselves abused as children. The suggestion is that they grow up thinking abuse is ‘normal’ and when they reach sexual maturity, they prey on the next generation of children. It’s a pychological or psychiatric problem. I don’t know if it can be cured or if the only solution is to fill these abusers with drugs that shut down their sexual urges.

Calis

September 12, 2012

Ricks, thanks for two insightful articles. I do think this is an important topic to be discussed and the links you included in this post make this clear, as they demonstrate the criminalizations already happening, which will only become worse over the next decade.

One aspect you have not adressed yet directly is the difference (for example) between CAI and images/video of a murder, the watching of which does not do additional harm to the person depicted (do it might do so to remaining family members/friends) .

In the case of CAI, some (as for example Udo Vetter, who posted one of the few nuanced responses in the last few days: http://bit.ly/TJfSno) argue, that an important reason for making it illegal to possess such material is the traumatic effect this material and the knowledge of its distribution might have on the persons depicted even years later. While this of course suggests foremost that keeping distribution illegal might be a good idea (which you did not claim should be changed), one could also argue that for this reason the simple possession of CAI is a problem.

What do you think?

Anon123

September 14, 2012

What you do for an argument like this is take it and apply that same logic to other forms of media being distributed. Should we ban the Star Wars Kid video? How about all the videos and images of 9/11 or the Iraq war? Should we ban the video of the soldier being decapitated? All of these things are very distressful for the families involved.

The photos section of Electronic Arts’ Facebook fanpage (https://www.facebook.com/EA?sk=photos) has been just flooded with CAI (mostly hentai drawings, nothing real, nonetheless illegal material in many countries). So everyone who visited those pages recently and saw those images is guilty of watching, transmitting (to your browser) and possessing (in the browser cache) of the CAI.

Andrzej

September 12, 2012

I agree with this article. Because topic of “child porn” is “toxic” it gives such a great excuse for censorship and putting people to jail.

Anonymous Brit

September 12, 2012

Normally I do not post anonymously but the utterly poisonous/dangerous atmosphere that exists in the UK at the merest mention of children and sexuality in the same sentence prevents any courage at speaking out as myself on this topic. In the UK, if anyone can even find out any web searching linking you and this topic then it can be the end of your career – even if (a) the comments are perfectly valid/legal and (b) do not link to anything remotely ‘offensive’ to the moral minority (and yes I did NOT make a mistake at that description).

Children ARE sexual. Fact. I am in my 40’s now and when I was growing up (at the end of 60-80’s), many of my friends masturbated and I certainly did! We played ‘Doctors and Nurses’ style ‘discovery’ games – and although SOME parents were repressive about this (i.e. punished children if they found them playing sexually) – most were not. I was caught a number of times by my parents (and grandparents) and never shouted at or punished (although once when older I was told to be more discreet). One of my best friends was a girl my own age and on one occasion (think I was about 10yo) we masturbated together in her room (both separately – watching – and each other – investigating each other very throughly). Both of us had orgasms – yes many if not most children are quite capable of orgasms – me included – although dry of course in the case of boys. It was one of the most delightful experiences I have had and I don’t mind admitting that I had more than a little crush on her. To me it was just the sort of thing that kids do!

I have children of my own (boy and girl) and have caught both masturbating (more than once) on separate occasions (I’ve no idea if they have investigated each other – that is their business) – but NEVER punished them and always tried to answer questions honestly and without embarressment. I have told them NEVER to play like this with other children though – it is just too dangerous.

I despair thinking about children growing up today. Any sexual play in childhood (even between consenting CHILDREN) is treated as a CRIME! One boy (I read about) of about 8 years old pulled a similar aged girl’s pants down (was obviously innocent investigation) and was ARRESTED and even more ridiculous – charged with a SEX CRIME! How did we get to this?

I blame the ‘Cult of Childhood Innocence’ – this mythical state of being where children under (perhaps) the age of 12 are perfectly innocent of anything sexual and worse must be kept in this pure angelic state until it is legal for them to have sex (i.e. 16 in the UK). They are told (in a clinical way) about the biology of sex and the about love and relationships but any sexual contact (even between children or teenagers of similar ages) is villified. Far worse than this is that this mythical ‘state of purity’ is taken as being somehow ‘normal’ and ‘Politically Correct’ and anybody who challenges this is thought of as a ‘pervert’ or potential child molester.

The idiotic ‘fear every adult’ lessons that children are given at school and the ‘Child Protection’ register (aka CRB – criminal records bureau check) makes things far worse. CRB’s are like a ‘virus scanner’ for humans – i.e. useless. All it says is ‘I haven’t been caught/registered yet’ and most children are abused/molested at home. Adults (especially men) are terrified of being anywhere near children now in case they are accused of ‘inappropriate touching’ (even if it cannot be proven) as this can completely destroy your life.

The laws have actually made children much LESS safe than they were before (when I was growing up) IMHO. When I was growing up (in the 1970’s), I fell off a swing (flew through the air) in public (bursting my nose) and immediately several adults (men) can straight over to me to check if I was OK, dust me off and check me over – also checking for sprains/broken bones. You couldn’t do that now – you would be ARRESTED for touching a child. Recently a little girl fell over in the ROAD (close to me) and I had to wait (deflecting cars) until I had some witnesses before I could pick her up (and she WAS hurt – broke her finger).

The laws (both in regard to child (lack of) ‘safety’ and child/cartoon ‘porn’) are not designed to protect children – they are designed to enforce the moral view of a minority of people (who view themselves as the protectors of children’s ‘innocence’) and are destroying our freedom, our society, ensuring utter distrust between adults and children and destroying our society.

We have to get rid of the view that children are completely innocent – this mythical creature does NOT exist. I certainly was not innocent as a child and neither are children today. They are simply young human beings who need to be respected, treated as people and allowed to be sexual (as we were) if they want to be. The only kind of protection that IS needed is to stop anyone (child or adult) being FORCED to do something against their will as that is what hurts – not children playing sexually with each other or even sexual picture of children on the internet.

The German reaction seems obvious. The country is pretty much ran by christian conservatives, and you go out on a limb, calling them evil while being on the wrong side of a toxic topic.
Do not be surprised that the Piratenpartei pulled a political move on you. They have been able to enter actual politics, and now they have to live or die doing it. While cleaning up the child porn mess is extremely important for the pirate agenda, Germany with their christian conservatives and petit bourgeois might not be the place to start. On the other hand, they might be the stronghold that decides the issue once and for all – in that case you need a tailored plan to make the Germans listen.

Sesil

September 12, 2012

Malditos enfermos, damn sick bastards

harveyed

September 17, 2012

Yes the children will fare better if we adults look away from the disgusting problems in society… or wait a second… maybe they won’t..?

>”For some, the written word is more powerful than the pictures. For some, the written word promotes a graphic image in their mind.”

Might as well just make thinking illegal.

DavidXanatos

September 13, 2012

thats real bullshit.
This has absolutely nothing to do with child protection.
Its just a witch hunt against pedophiles.

Can it be any more clearer that its not about child protection but simply about reverting back slowly into the dark ages…

harveyed

September 13, 2012

I have warned for this for a long time. Soon if this continues we will be burning books like in Nazi Germany… Books which could very well be sex-education books for high school kids or “fine culture” erotic litterature for ladies for that matter.

In Sweden DRAWN sexual pictures of children were almost punished the other year. No real kid could ever have been harmed in the drawing of those pictures. I mean.. wtf!? This child porn hysteria really is pretty much like the witch hunts of the dark ages…

Anon123

September 13, 2012

What’s with all this talk about adding exceptions? You guys are clearly missing the point. Censorship is wrong, period. It should not be illegal to possess or distribute CP. That doing so helps protect children is just a bonus but this is still primarily a freedom of speech issue.

No. You are completely wrong. The person in question ordered live streamed rape of a child. No one is going to defend that. There are lots of porn which have nothing to do with rape and you either KNOW that – or you are a complete idiot.

There are very many forms of porn which don’t at all have rape or molestation of real kids as a prerequisite. For instance drawn hentai art and young-looking “ordinary” porn stars who are at least 18 years old.

This link you provide is a perfect argument that child porn should be legalized so that the production could be *controlled* and not have to be done by (violent) criminals. If the production is legalized and controlled so that young-looking adults can starr in child porn pieces legally, then the pedophiles won’t have to do something as damaging as to pay for violent crimes to get their share of porn!

Sten

September 13, 2012

“Idiot”?

The man asks the supplier for certain images and the supplier delivered the images, streamed live over the net.
The images the man asked for where images of children being raped.
The man did not rape the children, he asked to see images of the act being perpetrated.
There are questions to be asked.
Would the supplier have committed the crimes If there where no images ordered? If not, should the ordering and filming of criminal acts be legal if the incentive – to commit the acts – is the production of the images?

Anonymous

September 14, 2012

I would say that he asked for the rape, and not the images. He could have downloaded one of the millions of images (supposedly) floating around on the net.

But he ordered the rape instead.

In my country (Germany), ordering/paying to kill someone is AFAIK as punishable as the murder itself. And you would be punished if found and:

– you ordered for having a snuff video
– for getting rid of your expensive ex-wife

But watching a snuff video or evading payments to your ex-wife are still different from murder.

Stop conflating issues.

A citizen

September 14, 2012

I would say that he asked for the rape as a means to produce the images. He could have downloaded one of the millions of images that are (supposedly) floating around on the net.

But he ordered the rape instead.

In my country (Germany), ordering/paying to kill someone is AFAIK as punishable as the murder itself. And you would be punished if found that you ordered a murder:

– for getting a snuff video
– for getting rid of your expensive ex-wife
– or any other of the many reasons people plan to kill

But just watching a snuff video or just evading payments to your ex-wife are still different from murder. The murder is ‘only’ a means to get get a desired effect, much as the rape in the case you mentioned. Yet, the murder and rape is the part that will should – of course – be punished the most.

Stop conflating issues.

Rick is asking for the snuff video and the CAI to be legal to possess – and being able to distributed, at least in certain cases. And I totally agree, but he was the first to have the balls to write this idea down. And the reasons are so obvious, yet the taboo so strong that people are not able to think clearly.

I now actually expect more and more progressive people to eventually say ‘I always thought that (the way Rick describes it)’. Because his writings are an anchor for further discussions. The same people that opposed any ideas like this strongly before. It is funny how people work and how people deny emotional manipulation through taboos being at work. They still do. Many, many will for a while. The more thoughtful remain silent because they are too afraid to speak up (like I am, usually). But I actually believe a change will be coming here – and anyone watching this transition of this taboo to a more rational and therefore better way of handling such a difficult field can study and will see this mass control in action.

Sexual taboos – of discussion and thought, not necessarily action! – is still the means to enact control. I think Focault had this idea that sexuality is the main way of controlling people.

Supposedly thousands of sociology students read him (I never did). But it takes a nerd to actually raise this issue.

I believe that the mechanisms that the people in power use, like making it illegal to possess child pornography, are essentially of the same kind as the domination and control that people use sexually against children. And the shame and guilt that the victims face is not only a product of society – but also a product of their biology at work, in response to the rape.

THAT is one of the main cruel things about abuse – making the abused accept and take over the mindset of the abuser to some degree. And in turn breaking the human spirit of individual freedom, one of the few truly human things. Yet, ignoring the voices of the abused and feeling sorry -for the abused having Stockholm syndrome – is extremely arrogant and and again an assertion over control of the victim. I believe it is possible to heal this, but I also believe it is extremely difficult and must involve treating the victim as a human rather than a victim.

The idea of BDSM (not necessarily the implementation) of having a voluntary power exchange between adults, able to consent, arose, I believe, out of the idea that tribe organization mechanisms that we inherited from the apes are still at work to a high degree. And that it is better to evaporate this behavior, unhealthy for modern societies as well as a progress to more civilized manners, in a controlled way, in the bedroom.

Along the same lines, I believe (and I have not seen evidence to the contrary) would _virtual_ CAI help the pedophiles. And the victims!

I also think (and the data that floats around seems to support this) that child abuse is not at all a clear cut – pedophile or not – issue. Most perpetrators are supposed to be not pedophilic at all. This too much of simplifying the issue with labels that do not fit the situation. And this clouds the view again – and is thus leading to damaging, irrational policies. Most people are probably many things sexually – and some have a combination of high sex drive and lack of self control/reflection and go and harm others.

I believe society would be a lot better of if people would admit the existence of abusive traits and dominant (as well as submissive) behavior in probably almost anyone, of various degrees – and would also admit that this is a way that societies are structured to a large extent.

Only then I believe can good ways to deal with this topic be found.

Finally, the amount of controversy and attempted/planned repression (like the story from the UK today) surrounding even just the discussion of this issue is in itself a very good argument for a completely uncensored internet – as well as for technologies like TOR and Freenet to exist.

S

September 14, 2012

The question still remains, would he have ordered the rape if there where no images produced?
t.

harveyed

September 14, 2012

If the link is correct journalism, the man was convicted for specifically buying “the service” to have a child raped and document the crime and send the resulting imagery to him.

That is under legislation “anstiftan till ” in Sweden, and if you don’t understand the difference of

1. just asking for any porn imagery already produced
and
2. specifically asking if someone could rape a child for you for a price..

then you clearly are both totally empathy damaged and idiot.

Sten

September 15, 2012

@harveyed

No matter whom you believe to be an idiot and/or empathetically challenged, you avoid to answer the question.

Would the crime have been ordered and perpetrated if there where no images to be produced?

And in regards of being “correct” the man is not “convicted” of anything for the moment, and why are you writing about what paragraph of the law they apply in regards of the arrest?

The question is simple and none of your arguments have any bearing in regards of it what so ever.

Would the crime have been committed if there where no images to be produced and distributed?

harveyed

September 15, 2012

“Would the crime have been ordered and perpetrated if there where no images to be produced?”

If the predator had access to legally produced fiction (porn) which depicted the same scenario as the one “ordered”, then the perpetrator would not have had to order the rape at all, but could jerk off to the legally produced porn, and no kid would have had to be hurt in the first place!

The lack of legal alternatives really forces this demand for child porn into a market controlled by mafia and other tough criminality. It does in practice lead to far worse consequences in society than if we could have a legal market of drawn fiction or young-looking adult models…

Sten

September 16, 2012

@harveyed

“If the predator had access to legally produced fiction (porn) which depicted the same scenario as the one “ordered”, then the perpetrator would not have had to order the rape at all,”

There is plenty of fake age porn available on the net, cartoon and role play – he could have used that (however the rape of babies and 5 year old kids is not that easy to fake).
So your argument falls flat and does not answer the question posed.
Would the supplier have committed the crimes If there where no images ordered?
If not, should the ordering and filming of criminal acts be legal if the incentive – to commit the acts – is the production of the images?

harveyed

September 16, 2012

“So your argument falls flat and does not answer the question posed.”

No my argument does not fall flat at all. This persons action has nothing to do with porn but is the sad reflection of a certain individual’s sadistic urge to see other (real) people hurt.

The person in question has commited a crime that is not about buying porn at all, but rather paying someone for performing a violent criminal act against a child and then documenting it.

Do you really don’t see the difference between the fiction of porn and the violent acts of child abuse sex offenders? Then you do have a serious problem, Sten. I would advise you to seek professional help for that. But probably (and hopefully) you are just an internet troll trying to fuck with the rest of us.

Sten

September 16, 2012

@harveyed

The writer who resorts to personal attacks tend to be the one loosing the debate.

So try to answer the questions posed.
Would the supplier have committed the crimes If there where no images ordered?
If not, should the ordering and filming of criminal acts be legal if the incentive – to commit the acts – is the production of the images?

And here is one more question for you.
Should the actual possession of the material (images of actual acts of rape that the Swedish man ordered) and failing handing it over to the police be considered withholding evidence?

“Do you really don’t see the difference between the fiction of porn and the violent acts of child abuse sex offenders? ”
Why are you continuously. writing about porn?
I am not writing about porn, I am writing about the act of filmed childrape.
You are the one who writes that “fictional porn” would have prevented the man from ordering the images of the criminal act. You introduced the word porn to the discussion!
You seem utterly confused!

harveyed

September 16, 2012

So let’s get this straight:

You accuse me for confusing you. You are the guy who went into a blog post commentary field and started a thread with the obvious purpose of trying to mislead people into believing that the crime this person in this link of yours has done in any way has anything to do with child porn.

I think you know who of us is trying to cause confusion and disgust with their off topic links..

Sten

September 17, 2012

@harveyed

“So let’s get this straight:
You accuse me for confusing you. ”

How can you get something straight when you start of with a fallacy?
I have not accuses you of anything and No you are not confusing me. You did however start to write about and compare porn, I did not. Therefore you appear to be utterly confused since you are the one making the comparison.

And no it is not an off topic link. It is a link to a case when a man order live images of child rape.

“You are the guy who went into a blog post commentary field and started a thread with the obvious purpose of trying to mislead people into believing that the crime this person in this link of yours has done in any way has anything to do with child porn.”

What you write above is what you believe – that is your right – and once again you are the one referring to porn and yes when you mention it, the images produced would probably be considered child porn.

I am however merely posing simple questions that you seem to be incapable of answering:

Would the supplier have committed the crimes If there where no images ordered?
If not, should the ordering and filming of criminal acts be legal if the incentive – to commit the acts – is the production of the images?

Should the actual possession of the material (images of actual acts of rape that the Swedish man ordered) and failing handing them over to the police be considered withholding evidence?

Fairly simple questions that points to the fact that the issue is more complicated than what Falkvinge´s texts above suggests.

harveyed

September 17, 2012

What you started this thread off with was

“Here is an interesting aspect in regards of the subject discussed, a man ordered live streamed child porn over the net and the supplier delivered.”

Which clearly by intent is misleading and confuses child porn (which could well be produced without hurting real kids) with the act of buying the service to have a kid raped.

Sten

September 17, 2012

“Which clearly by intent is misleading and confuses child porn (which could well be produced without hurting real kids) with the act of buying the service to have a kid raped.”

But it was not produced without hurting real kids, it was produced hurting kids and that is the point of the questions posed. The man ordered actual images of actual kids being hurt. So the questions remain:

Would the supplier have committed the crimes If there where no images ordered (or would the man have been happy just ordering the crime without seeing the images of the crime)?
If not, should the ordering and filming of criminal acts be legal if the incentive – to commit the acts – is the production of the images?

Should the actual possession of the material (images of actual acts of rape that the Swedish man ordered) and failing handing them over to the police be considered withholding evidence?

Fairly simple questions that points to the fact that the issue is more complicated than what Falkvinge´s texts above suggests.

harveyed

September 17, 2012

“Should the actual possession of the material (images of actual acts of rape that the Swedish man ordered) and failing handing them over to the police be considered withholding evidence?”

Well it may be reasonable to have a illegal-to-withhold-evidence law IF there is little to no risk of an -innocent- person getting ahold of the information to be charged for the possession of child porn.

Under current child-porn legislation it would not be a good idea because it would lead to a legal fork – someone could (anonymously) make you see evidence of child rape – and then

1. going to the police with the material may get you charged for looking at / posessing child porn.
2. not going to the police with the material would be illegal with such an “withholding of evidence” clause.

So the only reasonable way to introduce withholding-of-evidence law would be to remove illegality of child porn possession and looking.

However in this special case you mention there is a totally different crime: “anstiftan till våldsbrott”. I don’t think very many people would say that should ever be legal.

Mårten

September 13, 2012

The man is PRODUCING CAI images, everyone agree that should be illegal:

This is a perfect example of why making possession of ‘CAI’ images are both unnecessary and counter-productive.

Falk

September 13, 2012

I fully agree with this article and see the problem in a general tendency towards FUD laws and naive populism as a foundation for democratic laws (politicians trying to distinguish themselves): Consider copy protection [also abbreviated CP ^^] laws in Germany – it is illegal to circumvent any copy protection mechanism here instead of just software piracy, which is the problem to be solved. There are many good reasons why one might legitimately want to circumvent it – play on linux, backups, avoid open ports due to online copy protection, copy protection drivers that are (almost) rootkits or simply not updated (e.g. I had to repurchase four Splinter Cell parts even though I bought all parts at full price when they were released simply because the publisher refused to update the copy protection for the original versions). Good example: GTA 4, which required me to register with two online services and which I had to install on my desktop PC over my notebook’s drive, since my local one didn’t work with the protection. It’s pure stupidity to forbid circumventing copy protection instead of just software piracy.

Similarly with child abuse: Instead of just forbidding child abuse, depictions of it are forbidden as well. A while ago I saw a pornographic Simpsons cartoon on a major porn webpage. I was smart enough to immediately clear my cache and then wipe the free space on my fully encrypted HDD, but asked myself whether other people would have the same knowledge regarding both law and technology (since wiping files on a journaling file system is not exactly trivial). Some weeks later I read that someone was convicted for having a similar depiction, which he not even had for sexual purposes but which he meant as a joke.

Some days ago I became involved personally again: After >10 years in the web I stumbled upon real child pornography for the first time on an infamous image board starting with a 4. I wiped my cache again and kept surfing since I thought of it as a one time incident. Unfortunately, 2 days later the same thing happened again. Even though I reported it, deleted my cache and wiped my fully encrypted HDD again I almost panicked, especially since I realised that in order to report the page I had to enable scripts, which automatically reloaded it. You mentioned the implications of a computer taken away, especially for a student: All my work would be gone, I’d lose all my friends, my parents would hate me, I might have to go to prison and be kept under surveillance afterwards. A court could say that I accessed those resources repeatedly – I’d be ruined. If I ever went into politics any intelligence agency could ruin me as soon as I rubbed them the wrong way. Well known from American trials: Even if the allegations would be dismissed, they would hurt my reputation almost as badly. The next morning I additionally reinstalled my entire system and blocked the page locally as well as over DNS servers. You might consider my reaction exaggerated, but in the situation it’s definitely not funny. I don’t feel too good about mentioning it even now.

More problems like this can easily arise, because some BDSM story authors don’t realise that while they can write about torture, humiliation, enslavement and body modifications (etc.), when they indicate an age below 18 of any person, this might be the point where they go too far. Or because nude depictions of minors aren’t illegal in Russia afaik. Or because German laws introduced a strange concept called Jugendanscheinspornographie – the participants don’t even have to be underage, but if they look like they might be you might already be in serious trouble. With a trend towards webcams – who knows whether that webcam video you just watched is of an underage person. A general preference in our society towards young women and even virginity exacerbates this. A day in age can be the difference between jail and freedom. As a matter of fact, from what I read in psychology, it’s perfectly normal for a male to desire women once they develop sexual characteristics – parthenophilia is usually not even treated and in many developed countries it is generally legal to sleep with 14 year olds. Tape that and you’re in a world of pain, though.

This is especially problematic, since, regarding sexuality, prohibitions make it all the more desirable for many people. I know of several cases, where people who weren’t pedophile came into conflict with the law simply because they fantasised about how forbidden it would be or because they were curious. Webcams being available to curious children, who tape themselves (as they should be allowed to imho), doesn’t help. When I was a kid the only camera we had was a Gameboy Cam and I remember several of my friends to take partial nude pictures with such devices. Before they sold them or passed them on, they would delete the pictures. Of course, as a child you neither know that this is illegal material nor that simply deleting a file on a flash device doesn’t delete it at all. And for sure the new owner doesn’t anticipate that his shiny new, allegedly empty camera might contain material that might get him into serious trouble.

To close this lengthy comment: One thing I can’t forget is the actual image I saw – the child smiled. I don’t know whether this is representative [even though the wikileaks article implies it might] and it doesn’t affect the act to be child abuse and terrible – a child can neither agree nor estimate the consequences or risks of its actions, but it seemed to enjoy its possibly first contact with sexuality. Of course, the personality rights of it are hurt (which is why I would have destroyed the picture even if not forced to do so), but not more than that of an African man being burnt alive or an Ukrainian being killed with a screwdriver and a hammer. Hence, it is absolutely right to forbid distributing this material, but not owning it even temporarily and without motive. In ancient Greece love to children was common and reportedly enjoyed by both sides. I appreciate that we came to the conclusion that we leave a kid to discover his/her sexuality his/herself, because the risk of abuse is too high, but I don’t appreciate the subject to be perverted into pure symbol politics and demonised in ostentacious protectionism (the German term “Gutmenschen-Plakativität” comes to mind). A virgin killer LP shouldn’t be illegal, a medical depiction shouldn’t be illegal, possession shouldn’t be illegal. Abuse and distribution should be.

PS:
I still remember the picture and consider my brain to be an information processing device, so I still have the material stored on an information processing device, which I cannot wipe. I cannot unsee things and even if we had the capability to wipe brains I don’t think we should. In fact, I now feel more competent just like when you have to see a human ripped in parts for the first time – you will not enjoy it, but feel that it made you a better citizen, since now you are not too shocked to help anymore when you encounter it. That’s why those pictures are shown to medical specialists and soldiers. While I think every citizen should have seen blood and know first aid, I don’t think the same about child pornography, but I would appreciate my representatives to be shown this material as a preparation for the debate on this subject, the same way a journalist should be given the opportunity to research the field. If then and after talking to experts on this, my representatives still decide to forbid it, I consider my amateur view overruled. Call me a terrible person, but to me the severly injured human is still far more unpleasant to see than a child having intercourse. Prohibiton in the US during the 30s has shown that forbidding things can sometimes cause more harm than it does good. When you look into drug laws in Denmark afair, you see the same pattern: Just forbid the things that really should be forbidden, no derivatives of it and keep in mind that sometimes less is more. Information should be free.

PPS:
With a much lower priority, there is a related problem: Incest, actual intercourse between siblings. In Germany it is forbidden, not because children from such a couple might be disabled, since then you would also have to prevent certain disabled persons from having children, but because of our “Sittengesetz”. At least that’s my understanding. I’m neither lawyer nor philosopher, so I don’t have a fixed opinion about it and accept it as it is, but I develop serious stomach aches, when something is forbidden based on “morality” alone – there have to be axioms to base laws upon, but it seems antagonistic to argument this way (“It’s not forbidden because of health risks, but because sex among siblings is fundamentally wrong.”). It seems to me that many laws regarding sexuality are still influenced by conservative church morality, which banned sexuality as a diabolic thing, whereas I experience it as something divine. I don’t have a final solution to it, but I’m confident that we together as democratic citizens will find decents solutions to it [esp. since those are only optimisations of a great & working system]. And this can only be achieved through discussions like this one: Out of our comfort zone, dead honest, experimental, but also free, open and democratic. Human decency will triumph by doing what we do best: Adapting to changed situations.

[…] their governments. Child porn laws in the United States are an example of not merely bad laws, but insane laws. Rick Falkvinge follows up an earlier article: A common protest to my article was that prosecution […]

When I was a kid I used to dream about living in the UK when I grew up. Not so much anymore…

noko

September 13, 2012

I need to point out that it’s not actually a crime to be a pedophile.

It’s a crime to molest children and have images of children being abused. Simply having a sexual attraction to children isn’t a crime.

Otherwise it would be a crime to be a misanthrope or a sociopath.

Anon123

September 14, 2012

Actually it is, at least in the US. People have been put on the sex offender registry for admitting they are pedophiles even though they have never committed a physical crime.

David

September 16, 2012

[Citation Needed]

Linux Otaku

September 13, 2012

I have been onanising since thirteen years old, and I can say that I rediscovered bondage. At that time, I got really sexually aroused from bondaging myself with belts and then not being able to move when rolling on the floor. I did not know that it was named bondage and it was bdsm practice, I invented it by myself. So I can say I really rediscovered it.

It was only to the time around 15, when I watched a film Perfect Prey, which changed my life. It was about a man suffocating kidnapped womans with plastic bag, dressing them like a doll and then arranging their bodies. The day I was watching it I got sexualy aroused by seeing a young lady bondaged to a chair and suffocating with plastic bag over her had. I was onanising and imagining myself being that women. Then I started with experimental suffocating myself, I invented mechanisms with tape over my mouth so that I suffocate only little and when it is enough the tape breaks, I also bondaged myself with belts. I was still teenager when I was doing this to get sexually satisfied.

While sexually saysfying myself with this stuff, another thing sneaked on me – being so many times an innocend, hopeless women in my mind, I started to want to be a girl. Just because I imagined that girls are naturally submissive, they are naturaly opressed, and they role is to be a slave to their master. So sometimes I secretly crossdressed while doing the old good thing to get even more of the high.

Then I found there is a lot of anime and manga dealing with crossdressing and girls, and started to download it and collect it, to enhance my imagination. I have discovered another ways of bdsm, like imagining having a strict aunt forcing me to be a little obedient girl who gets spanked, suffocated and raped…

It is not that I get aroused reading manga where under 18 years old get raped because I would be imagining be the rapist. I’m imaging that ME is the character being raped, I even experimented with putting fingers into my ass to stimulate prostate gland.

In any way, one of my favourite, probably not so illegal but might be in some countries is Boy Soprano, it is about a boy being bringed up as a girls while being sexually teased/abused by his step sister and auntie… You can find it with google by typing in boy soprano to images section, one of the links google found is for example: hXXp://theawesomehentai.com/manga/Boy%20Soprano/Volume%2001/, just to get the idea.

So while I’m really perverted young male right now (and still virgin…), and I might like cartoons and stories which could be considered CP, I’m not actually some “dirty pedobear”, but rather a slutty bitch, and I’m planning to buy continue with that, I have already choosen a shop to order custom size japanese schoolgirl uniform and I will get french maid one too with that, just to have more fun 😉

Linux Otaku

BnP

September 15, 2012

You sound like the average /a/non.

Kamato

September 20, 2012

What the fuck is WRONG with you?

anonymous brit

April 10, 2013

kids are fucked up by this unmoral internet.

Dave

September 14, 2012

Also notable is the case of Philip Greaves in the United States, whose (poorly written) book that attempted to help pedophiles prevent themselves from breaking any laws earned him a conviction because of his written descriptions were too graphic for the liking of one fanatical sheriff in Floriduh.

Frank Merlott

September 14, 2012

You are 200% right on this subject but too many jobs depend on child porn, “charity experts” (on Internet filtering), will be losing their jobs and high wages if child porn is ever made legal. They want to carry on getting paid for filtering photos of kids in the bath tube and cartoons.

Llarian

September 14, 2012

Child pornography laws today are so insane that probably at least 90% of parents in developed countries are in possession of child pornography – simply because they take utterly normal pictures of their own children. Pictures of the baby being changed (Watch out! If the genitals are in the frame, it’s child porn!), of a toddler in the bath, etc. In several countries, any picture of an underage person who is not completely dressed is considered CAI, regardless of any sexual content, or any abuse. So you better not take a camera to the beach – a kid in their swimming trunks could be in the pic, and bingo! you have child porn. In Germany, it is even more insane. While the partially dressed child on its own is okay (as long as no naughty parts are showing), even fully dressed children in normal settings can become pornographic pictures if they are presented in a setting with adult pictures. In other words, don’t keep your kid’s fotos in the same shoebox as the ones of your own adult but naked butt – your kid’s fotos instantly become child porn.

And don’t get me started on Australia. Down under, slender women (!) are now discriminated against through child porn laws. If you happen to be a Cup A, don’t you dare getting pictures of yourself naked or in a swim suit – it’s child porn, simply because young girls also have a Cup A size when they hit puberty. You can be over 40 and have greying hair, but if your chest is undersized, you get treated as if you were underage. (Not complaining of personal experience here. Let’s just say stores do not normally carry my size – and certain sports are painful for me.)

So how do we raise awareness of this? Rick’s articles are a good start (although, I must say your first one could have been better – a lot of people did not read past the title, and that’s where the rioting starts). What we really need to do is raise parent’s awareness of what I wrote above. YOU can be punished for doing what is perfectly normal – for taking pictures of your children as they grow up. That’s the only angle that will work.

Btw, some people argued that the example in the first article, of witnesses trying to erase the pictures of a child being raped instead of interfering was wrong for another reason, because any decent adult would defend the child and not even think about consequences or their Google glasses at this moment. I wish it were so, but reality is very different. On father’s day 2003, in the small town of Heide in Schleswig-Holstein, a 14 year old girl was raped right in the middle of a busy city center. There were at least 12 witnesses. Nobody interfered, although the girl was screaming for help. That’s human nature for you – as soon as there are two or more people who could do something, nobody actually will do something.

Tannerism

September 15, 2012

“A commonly used method of judging a woman’s sexual maturation may not be good enough in child pornography prosecutions.”

“So often these people get convicted on what I refer to as felonious bad taste,” said Dr. Arlan Rosenbloom, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of Florida in Gainesville. “They’re downloading stuff that isn’t very nice, but isn’t illegal.”

I’m very confused about why you choose to adopt the terminology invented by the censor brigade, “child abuse images” over the more widely understood and direct “child pornography”. I see how it fits when discussing your examples about how these laws suppress evidence, which is a good point, but it goes against the equally important point that much (probably most) child pornography currently being produced is not in fact images of child abuse. Rather it is pictures that teens and tweens voluntarily take of themselves doing things that would not even be illegal had they not been recorded.

It’s obvious to you and me that these have virtually nothing in common with a picture of a child rape in a park, but as long as the law fails to distinguish, we need a term that covers both. I do understand why it’s uncomfortable to refer too pictures of a vile crime as “pornography”, but on the other hand “abuse” completely fails to describe the harmless self-shot images. If it has to be one of the other, I think “child pornography” works better, but perhaps some other label would be better. Something like “minor sex pictures”.

harveyed

September 16, 2012

I think the term “child pornography” is too broad. It does not make any distinction between images that are of real children from drawn or animated art. It does not either make clear if any real kid was harmed in the production of the imagery.

Maybe the most important distinction being between the cases where real kids are abused and the cases where no real kids are abused. In one of the cases the evidence part is important – evidence of child abuse, and the other part… where no real kids are harmed… maybe should not be illegal at all?

Pirate

September 17, 2012

You haven’t mention a judicial difference between child abuse and CAI, yet. There is a limitation period for child rape. You can only punish a (child) rape within a certain time (it differ with nation, usually child gets adult + x years). But you can judge the possession of CAI without time limitation; either you posses CAI or not: it doesn’t matter how long you posses CAI.
So it (could) happen that the one who documents the abuse will be jailed but not the offender.

Criminal law helps child molester in two ways:
1. Law prohibits the persecution of the offender after the limitation period.
2. Law prohibit the persecution of the offender within the limitation period, while all persons who want to help the victim with the evidents/documents (pictures/videos) are threatened with jail because of the mere possession.
I can understand when parents don’t care about the jail threat, but foreign people who accidentally get documents of a child abuse will care about the law threat sentence and dont help the infant.

Pirates will get some voter bonus if they are in favor to cancel this time limitation and the possession of CAI. It is hard enough to proof this rape after all these years. The child molester should live with it in judicial uncertainty as long as the victim has to.

I bet every single christian and protestant people saw “childporn” in his life (and loved it). I will not loose this bet often even against some art loving people.
Create (draw, sculpture) nude children apply wings and name them “angels”. They do it this way after the first one emerges, about 2000 years ago.

You can see this kind of art (adult, child angels) in most churches. Go into a church you see infant angels. OMG you will be jailed cause you make tourist photos from churches with this kind of art on the walls. And child angels exists in 3D art, too, just browse via search engine “sculptur child angels”, even in sweden.
But not only in sweden and churches but as a town’s landmark (Brussels), too:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manneken_Pis
(sculpture of small boy pissing)
Ok, when these samples aren’t childporn and you take pictures from them it isn’t CAI either, or?

Is it CAI when court didn’t realize or accept it is art? Like this modern mangas (5 judges in a panel, omg)? Rick told us, that the child he embeded above is manga. If you dont knew that it could be a painting of an underaged Jesus walking over water (but not sold to a church, yet).

Besides, in times of open source and graphic software you can easily create a picture which looks like that there was a child abuse. Take a picture of a happy child with sparkling eyes at the beach jumping up and down in front of an ice cream shop or because of a ball game. Take a picture of an old (wo)men lying at a nude beach and put them with the software togather. Haven’t you ever seen your Dad playing with your child at the beach. When you were a child wasn’t it fun to bump on dads belly? And that is what it looks like putting this imaginations togather. Is it childporn or art? Putting images togather to create a new picture. Do you have to draw on your own or is it art to know how to use software and to know how it should look like at the end? Is there a place for such kind of realistic art?

When will we be punished for our fantasie? This translator of the japanese Mangas was kind of lucky to get through all these court instances and not guilty in the end. Given he would be judged guilty i swear the society will mark him entire life for childporn. He would be isolated as if he had abused the child; no one will know/wants to know it was just a cartoon: it’s just like a hunt. We have one judged, nail him/her so he never can do it again.

And of cause there are really cases of child abuse but they dont happen that often as we think they do. We even thought that terrorists do more often their job and agreed upon some limitations to our freedom. But the hell they didn’t do their jobs that often as we were told. There weren’t that much attacks on our democracy as politicians supposed so. If there were that much child molesters near us, the community has a much greater problem than to prohibit the possession of childporn to convict these offenders.

Pirate

September 17, 2012

Addendum:
1. A kind of opposite of the infant angel is the infant faun (roman; in greek: satyr). They don’t have wings and instead of normal feet they have legs of a goat; but a faun could also be (fe)male.
Just search on your own. Most popular words: “faun with bunch of grapes”, “Bacchante and Infant Faun”. A faun is not that often seen in churches but in arts/museum.
2. The most popular “childporn” is the illustration or sculpture of new born Jesus lying in a crib or on mother’s arm. This kind is even seen in Vatican: “golden child vatican treasury”.

ThorstenV

September 17, 2012

I’m from Germany and somewhat surprised by the German pirat party’s knee jerk reaction. The background that fundamental Christians are behind it, is interesting as it explains that any kind of sexuality is considered abuse, while pictures of quite obvious physical child abuse seem to pose no problem at all and can be found on a wide variety of prestigious sites. See i. e. this collection of fully clothed bound or tortured children http://www.oddee.com/item_98288.aspx

Pirate

September 18, 2012

Consider the technic and hacktivism and cyberwar is going on…if bot networks don’s spam e-mail accounts but instead they replace every link in the internet with a (random) link to childporn.
Like any word program can replace text/cipher/characters with another already, the virus/worm/bot does that with links.
Ok, when this happens the internet would have a quite big problem to rearrange all and to let trading and communication going on…but every click would get the user in jail.

2. Modern child raping or
how to use poor mothers acting like a (uav =) drone or
how to get food
13. September 2012http://www.thelocal.se/43208/20120913/
““He has paid them to get children, and then they’ve connected web cameras and then the women have, according to his demands, assaulted the children while he sat home watching.””
The pictures on their PC are the only documents which would convict mother and man while they do “indoor-remote-rape”. They told us that is a single case, but i tell you, they are all poor and only persons with enough money can do this. And now imagine you delete this pictures because you want to see a clean internet…

In Germany Mr. Westerwelle leader of the Department for Foreign Affairs:http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Namensbeitrag/2012/09/2012-09-06-westerwelle-faz.html?nn=391850
“6. September 2012
“Europas Werte verteidigen”” (translation: We have to defend “Europe Values” at any costs)http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_3D08C649519E5EE2CC127B44AE7414B3/EN/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2012/120914-BM_Internet_MR.html?nn=479786
“14. September 2012
These regimes must not be given the technical means to spy on and harass their citizens. The Federal Government initiated with other EU partners the inclusion of internet and mobile phone surveillance technology in the EU sanctions regime vis-à-vis Syria and Iran.”
A report of Belarus:http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2012/9/18/58502/
“18. September 2012
In a special statement of the German parliament, which “Radio Svaboda” has received, si stated that modern technologies of improving the criminal investigation process, which were passed by the Germans at a seminar in Minsk in June 2009, include, in particular, analytical computer program «Analyst’s Notebook», which was later used by the Belarusian police not to fight terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal gangs, but to suppress protests of the civilian population…
Researches in part of recognition the surveillance samples within the EU projects INDECT and ADABTS are also questionable. With their help, the police and the management of shopping centers want to legitimately predict “suspicious behavior”, points out Andrej Hunko.
According to him, calls of German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle to control the export of technologies to authoritarian regimes have gone unheeded.””

2. Modern child raping or
how to use poor mothers acting like a (uav =) drone or
how to get food
13. September 2012http://www.thelocal.se/43208/20120913/
““He has paid them to get children, and then they’ve connected web cameras and then the women have, according to his demands, assaulted the children while he sat home watching.””
The pictures on their PC are the only documents which would convict mother and man while they do “indoor-remote-rape”. They told us that is a single case, but i tell you, they are all poor and only persons with enough money can do this. And now imagine you delete this pictures because you want to see a clean internet…

In Germany Mr. Westerwelle leader of the Department for Foreign Affairs:http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Namensbeitrag/2012/09/2012-09-06-westerwelle-faz.html?nn=391850
“6. September 2012
“Europas Werte verteidigen”” (translation: We have to defend “Europe Values” at any costs)http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_3D08C649519E5EE2CC127B44AE7414B3/EN/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2012/120914-BM_Internet_MR.html?nn=479786
“14. September 2012
These regimes must not be given the technical means to spy on and harass their citizens. The Federal Government initiated with other EU partners the inclusion of internet and mobile phone surveillance technology in the EU sanctions regime vis-à-vis Syria and Iran.”
A report of Belarus:http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2012/9/18/58502/
“18. September 2012
In a special statement of the German parliament, which “Radio Svaboda” has received, si stated that modern technologies of improving the criminal investigation process, which were passed by the Germans at a seminar in Minsk in June 2009, include, in particular, analytical computer program «Analyst’s Notebook», which was later used by the Belarusian police not to fight terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal gangs, but to suppress protests of the civilian population…
Researches in part of recognition the surveillance samples within the EU projects INDECT and ADABTS are also questionable. With their help, the police and the management of shopping centers want to legitimately predict “suspicious behavior”, points out Andrej Hunko.
According to him, calls of German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle to control the export of technologies to authoritarian regimes have gone unheeded.””

2. Modern child raping or
how to use poor mothers acting like a (uav =) drone or
how to get food
13. September 2012http://www.thelocal.se/43208/20120913/
““He has paid them to get children, and then they’ve connected web cameras and then the women have, according to his demands, assaulted the children while he sat home watching.””
The pictures on their PC are the only documents which would convict mother and man while they do “indoor-remote-rape”. They told us that is a single case, but i tell you, they are all poor and only persons with enough money can do this. And now imagine you delete this pictures because you want to see a clean internet…

In Germany Mr. Westerwelle leader of the Department for Foreign Affairs:http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Namensbeitrag/2012/09/2012-09-06-westerwelle-faz.html?nn=391850
“6. September 2012
“Europas Werte verteidigen”” (translation: We have to defend “Europe Values” at any costs)http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_3D08C649519E5EE2CC127B44AE7414B3/EN/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2012/120914-BM_Internet_MR.html?nn=479786
“14. September 2012
These regimes must not be given the technical means to spy on and harass their citizens. The Federal Government initiated with other EU partners the inclusion of internet and mobile phone surveillance technology in the EU sanctions regime vis-à-vis Syria and Iran.”
A report of Belarus:http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2012/9/18/58502/
“18. September 2012
In a special statement of the German parliament, which “Radio Svaboda” has received, si stated that modern technologies of improving the criminal investigation process, which were passed by the Germans at a seminar in Minsk in June 2009, include, in particular, analytical computer program «Analyst’s Notebook», which was later used by the Belarusian police not to fight terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal gangs, but to suppress protests of the civilian population…
Researches in part of recognition the surveillance samples within the EU projects INDECT and ADABTS are also questionable. With their help, the police and the management of shopping centers want to legitimately predict “suspicious behavior”, points out Andrej Hunko.
According to him, calls of German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle to control the export of technologies to authoritarian regimes have gone unheeded.””

2. Modern child raping or
how to use poor mothers acting like a (uav =) drone or
how to get food
13. September 2012http://www.thelocal.se/43208/20120913/
““He has paid them to get children, and then they’ve connected web cameras and then the women have, according to his demands, assaulted the children while he sat home watching.””
The pictures on their PC are the only documents which would convict mother and man while they do “indoor-remote-rape”. They told us that is a single case, but i tell you, they are all poor and only persons with enough money can do this. And now imagine you delete this pictures because you want to see a clean internet…

In Germany Mr. Westerwelle leader of the Department for Foreign Affairs:http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Namensbeitrag/2012/09/2012-09-06-westerwelle-faz.html?nn=391850
“6. September 2012
“Europas Werte verteidigen”” (translation: We have to defend “Europe Values” at any costs)http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_3D08C649519E5EE2CC127B44AE7414B3/EN/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2012/120914-BM_Internet_MR.html?nn=479786
“14. September 2012
These regimes must not be given the technical means to spy on and harass their citizens. The Federal Government initiated with other EU partners the inclusion of internet and mobile phone surveillance technology in the EU sanctions regime vis-à-vis Syria and Iran.”
A report of Belarus:http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2012/9/18/58502/
“18. September 2012
In a special statement of the German parliament, which “Radio Svaboda” has received, si stated that modern technologies of improving the criminal investigation process, which were passed by the Germans at a seminar in Minsk in June 2009, include, in particular, analytical computer program «Analyst’s Notebook», which was later used by the Belarusian police not to fight terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal gangs, but to suppress protests of the civilian population…
Researches in part of recognition the surveillance samples within the EU projects INDECT and ADABTS are also questionable. With their help, the police and the management of shopping centers want to legitimately predict “suspicious behavior”, points out Andrej Hunko.
According to him, calls of German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle to control the export of technologies to authoritarian regimes have gone unheeded.””

1. Modern child raping or
how to use poor mothers acting like a (uav =) drone or
how to get food
13. September 2012http://www.thelocal.se/43208/20120913/
““He has paid them to get children, and then they’ve connected web cameras and then the women have, according to his demands, assaulted the children while he sat home watching.””
The pictures on their PC are the only documents which would convict mother and man while they do “indoor-remote-rape”. They told us that is a single case, but i tell you, they are all poor and only persons with enough money can do this. And now imagine you delete this pictures because you want to see a clean internet…

In Germany Mr. Westerwelle leader of the Department for Foreign Affairs:http://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Namensbeitrag/2012/09/2012-09-06-westerwelle-faz.html?nn=391850
“6. September 2012
“Europas Werte verteidigen”” (translation: We have to defend “Europe Values” at any costs)http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/sid_3D08C649519E5EE2CC127B44AE7414B3/EN/Infoservice/Presse/Reden/2012/120914-BM_Internet_MR.html?nn=479786
“14. September 2012
These regimes must not be given the technical means to spy on and harass their citizens. The Federal Government initiated with other EU partners the inclusion of internet and mobile phone surveillance technology in the EU sanctions regime vis-à-vis Syria and Iran.”
A report of Belarus:http://www.charter97.org/en/news/2012/9/18/58502/
“18. September 2012
In a special statement of the German parliament, which “Radio Svaboda” has received, si stated that modern technologies of improving the criminal investigation process, which were passed by the Germans at a seminar in Minsk in June 2009, include, in particular, analytical computer program «Analyst’s Notebook», which was later used by the Belarusian police not to fight terrorists, drug traffickers and criminal gangs, but to suppress protests of the civilian population…
Researches in part of recognition the surveillance samples within the EU projects INDECT and ADABTS are also questionable. With their help, the police and the management of shopping centers want to legitimately predict “suspicious behavior”, points out Andrej Hunko.
According to him, calls of German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle to control the export of technologies to authoritarian regimes have gone unheeded.””

[…] is a very controversial post on Falkvinge.net on child pornography: ‘Child porn laws aren’t as bad as you think. They’re much much worse’ that illustrates how when society becomes intolerant of one thing, the State encroaches on our […]

[…] on his bike while I lay around feeling sorry for myself and reading blog posts on why we should legalise child porn. Bet the thought of that happening slaps the old brain about more than your average morning coffee. […]

This goes deep into history of art – not differing the image from object (or person), not making the difference between real people and crimes and it’s representaton (did any maker of horror movie was sentenced for the similar reasons?) is the weakness of Swedish judicial system, and possibly idiocracy that PPs around the world are facing.
Rick, you are right – majority of us don’t know and don’t want to know more abuut child pornography. Its not about “being trained” to think that it is *bad*, it is a basic human right to remain your physical integrity untouched and especialy if you are a child.
Those cases are simply dumb. And even if the line between possesing child pornography and being actuall molester is blurred and connection between these 2 thing is not easily traceable, I think you missed the point with this headline – this is not about “child pornography” but the abiity to make differentiation between cartoon and real people.
Judges who made this kind of verdict misused their public functions and their power. And they should be ridiculed. Also: missinterpretation of the law should be subject to the law.

It is about your judicial system, not about child pornography. It is about beliefs people have that some types of content can be harmfull. Manga cartoon is shadow of a shadow of a shadow, in Platonic terms, and one should be sentenced ever for making cartoon or a movie itself.

You raise some annoyingly good points in your articles. Especially this one. Made the hairs on my neck stand up.

Thumbs up from a closet-pirate Finn.

LordOfCake

December 18, 2012

Legally, reading this article is borderline to making me a criminal because of the cartoon character it contains :

Canadian laws addressing this are included in the C-46 amended Canadian Criminal Code passed in 1985. It is described under Part V: Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disordery Conduct: Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals. Section 163.1 defines child pornography to include “a visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means”, that “shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity”, or “the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years.” The definitive Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production.

D Richards

December 19, 2012

Consider the concept of satyagraha. In comic-speak, when the law is unjust, the just must become outlaws. Or more Gandhi-esque: when a law promotes injustice or oppression, it is the duty of every citizen to disobey it.

The battle over intellectual property and the ownership of information is ongoing. As with colonial powers and other tyrants, who claimed “we own ALL the land”, and corporate monopolies who are even now asserting ownership of ALL the money, so too will “publishers” attempt to foolishly assert ownership over ALL information — even that created by others.

It is the duty of every just and consenting adult who own self-photos that would fall under these laws to assert ownership of their own images and post them, probably with a suitably disobedient caption: “I was 17, I was not abused, and this body is still MINE.” Let’s reclaim a bit of clinical sensibility and remember that nudity is NOT the same as perverted.

[…] is illegal, but what if you happen to record an act of molestation as evidence? Rick Falkvinge has an article about this and how it -already- backfired on a few […]

anonymous brit

April 10, 2013

Dear sir
That man lost his career for that sexually suggestive image of a child, and rightly so. There is far too much sexual content on the internet as a whole it is unbalance and appeals to the unbalanced person. I will never forget the first times I accquainted myself with the website 4chan (back in 2007), That was the first time I saw child pornography on the internet. What you have posted on your blog is lolicon or japanese cartoon child porn (well not quite). from loli it goes to child modelling (naked modelling of children) then finally the real cp.

Morality is needed on the internet in many ways. For example I support piracy but the old school way, read the nfo file (description of contents) of many release groups and they said if you like it support it. They pirated so the everyday man can have access to high end material.

sexuality does not manifest itself until the teenage puberty phase anyway. And when it does it is or should be for those of their own age. People should date people roughly their own age. A decent age of consent is canada’s model of 14 and up but only for those 5 years older or less.

22 year old anonymous british man

noko

December 1, 2013

>That man lost his career for that sexually suggestive image of a child, and rightly so.

The fact that you can’t tell the difference between a drawing of an anime character and a real child makes you no different from the ones that actually abuse children.

I’d prefer it if they spent my taxes cracking down on catching the people who abuse REAL children than the ones who masturbate to victimless drawings of anime characters.

anonymous brit

April 10, 2013

also the picture clearly shows nudity (exposed nipples) of a girl who looks like a toddler 2-3 years old. so it definitely shows some sexual intent. why isnt she wearing a shirt?

There’s no excuse for peadophilia sorry. incidental mistaken incrimination such as parents taking pictures of their kids is usually rationalised (for example a picture of you with your children going swimming is not sexual, pretty obviously.

Accidental exposure on 4chan,web ads is also not criminalised. they know people acess this by visiting a general site, they are not stupid.

However some man downloading 4 gigabyte movies of child abuse from tor is a different thing.

As for additional filtering,we have been asked for it here in the uk but filtering already exists on all uk internet connections and it is called clearfeed. why are we asking for something we already have?

Interesting.
That reminds on a discussion i had few weeks ago on the question “is this society really free and interested in improving itself”.
Depending on your home country, the laws may be even worse than what you described…

So, someone gave me the link, I read both articles, and I want to give you a piece of my mind (you won’t probably even read it, since the article is 2 years old, but whatever).
First of all, good one. Well written, informative, and well reasoned. Congratulations.
Second, I don’t know if you didn’t want to, or you didn’t think about it, but there’s something that I’ve never seen anyone discuss about, but you were almost there. This is, about the rights and options a person that feels sexual attraction towards children has. And every time I try to argue about this, I use three points, so allow me to do the same here:

1- A person doesn’t choose his/her sexual preferences.
No matter who you are, or where you live, when you reach a certain age, you’re suddenly interested in sex. Sometimes, the opposite one. Sometimes, the same on. You don’t make the choice. No one knows what are the factors, but when you reach this point, you’re already interested in something. And not only that, but you have a preference over almost everything: supposing you feel attracted to girls, you have a preference over chest size, hair color, lips thickness, or even clothes. So, what exactly makes anyone think that people that feel attracted to minors (any age) had a say in the matter, are monsters, and should be killed? They had as much to say in it as they had in the food they like, their favorite color, and many other things: none.

2- A person can choose his/her actions.
There’s a difference between a child molester, and someone that feels attracted to children. The first has taken action. The second can only be accused of a thought crime. Therefore, and since neither of them had a say in the matter, we should try to help, if possible, the second one to avoid crossing the line. We don’t want more victims of child molestation, do we?

3- Pornography can (and actually did) lower rape rates
I don’t think this comes as a surprise to anyone. We all have sexual drives. We want to have sex with the people we feel attracted to, and this is something we can’t do anything about. And if we don’t do it, frustration rises, and so does the sexual impulses, reaching a point where we can be more forceful about it. There are plenty of ways to lower this frustration, but the most effective besides having actual sex, is porn.
Does this mean that we should allow child pornography? Probably not (at least, not as something sexual, but as the way you explained in your articles: as something informative). But this is the year 2014. We all saw Avatar (or at least a trailer or some promotional images). We all saw what computers can do. And we know that it’s possible to do the same with pornography. So, victimless pictures that allow people that had no option on their lives but feel attracted to children to cool off. But this is illegal on most countries. Depictions of nude or sexually suggestive fictional children are forbidden in plenty of countries, specially if they are “too” realistic (I’ve read about somewhere that forbids pictures based on real children, or that could be based on real children… so, I guess every picture).

So, I don’t understand. I’m a man that tries to apply logic to things, and make no assumptions, and I can’t see any reason why depictions of fictional children are forbidden, how those laws help anyone (much less kids), or why people is so opposed to discussing the matter altogether. The worst part is that we won’t see any changes soon. Politicians would be publicly dilapidated if they tried to bring up the subject, let’s not imagine what they would do if they tried to change any law. It’s sad, but I think we need a big case for people to react, and to realize that not everything is acceptable when the person trying to pull it off say it’s “in order to protect the children”.

Some random guy

April 26, 2014

Ugh… on the second point, I made a mistake. It should be:
“Therefore, and since neither of them had a say in the matter of feeling attracted to children, we should try to help, if possible, the second one to avoid crossing the line.”
Should have proofread before sending.

noko

June 4, 2014

Well, the idea that Paul Beresford MP had about making textual depictions of pedophilia illegal has just been made law as of today…

Why?

“For some, the written word is more powerful than the pictures. For some, the written word promotes a graphic image in their mind.”

It’s awesome to pay a quick visit this web page and reading the views of all friends concerning this paragraph, while I am also keen of
getting knowledge.

JP Meadows

September 22, 2015

Just picked up this link on Twitter, argarguments I’ve been making for years. Viewing CP not necessarily about condoning harm to children, sometimes quite the opposite.

Read this in “Inside Times” a while ago & mentioned on another blog. Would still like to understand context and statistics etc. (eg: what is/is not banned in Japan.)

“• America where child porn is illegal, and which has the highest rate of sex offences against children and women in the developed world, is lecturing Japan, a country that has the lowest rate of sex offences against children and women, and where child porn is legal.” ( InsideTime, ‘Do you know… ?’, November 2012 – http://insidetime.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/November-20121.pdf )

Meta

All original text on this site is under a Creative Commons Zero license ("public domain"). That includes any comments you submit. Syndicated articles that were first published elsewhere (clearly marked as such) are under the original license, typically a very permissive Creative Commons. Powered by Probewise.